Evaluation of procedures for typing of group B Streptococcus: a retrospective study

B族链球菌分型程序评价:一项回顾性研究

阅读:1

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates two procedures for typing of Streptococcus agalactiae (group B streptococci; GBS) isolates, using retrospective typing data from the period 2010 to 2014 with a commercial latex agglutination test (latex test) and the Lancefield precipitation test (LP test). Furthermore, the genotype distribution of phenotypically non-typable (NT) GBS isolates is presented. We also raise the awareness, that the difference in typing results obtained by phenotypical methods and genotype based methods may have implications on vaccine surveillance in case a GBS vaccine is introduced. METHODS: A total of 616 clinical GBS isolates from 2010 to 2014 were tested with both a latex test and the LP test. Among these, 66 isolates were genotyped by PCR, including 41 isolates that were phenotypically NT. RESULTS: The latex test provided a serotype for 83.8% of the isolates (95% CI [80.7-86.6]) compared to 87.5% (95% CI [84.6-90.0]) obtained by the LP method. The two assays provided identical capsular identification for all sero-typeable isolates (excluding NT isolates). The PCR assay provided a genotype designation to the 41 isolates defined as phenotypically NT isolates. DISCUSSION: We found that the latex test showed a slightly lower identification percentage than the LP test. Our recommendation is to use the latex agglutination as the routine primary assay for GBS surveillance, and then use the more labour intensive precipitation test on the NT isolates to increase the serotyping rate. A genotype could be assigned to all the phenotypically NT isolates, however, as a consequence genotyping will overestimate the coverage from possible future capsular polysaccharide based GBS vaccines.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。